Contents

Talk:Huia/GA1

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well written, but few sections have out of place details. (see below)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review 1[edit]

First of all, happy new year and I appreciate the effort of the editors. Before being promoted to Good Article, I request the editors to look into the below comments. (Feel free to strike the comments which the editors view as invalid):

• In section "Distribution and habitat", the opening line, "Subfossil and midden remains of the Huia have been found throughout the North Island from Northland to Wellington." can this be rephrased as "The Huia mainly inhabited the mountainous regions [...] where the Subfossil and midden remains have been found"? I am suggesting this because by rephrasing like this we will be directly answering the Section's heading in the introductory line, rather than leaving the reader to make the interpretation. (done)

From what I gather lowland forest destruction was major facotr in the bird's decline and i'm fairly sure that they were found in lowland forests too. Therefore I think this change, while it makes a lot of sense structurally, could be misleading. From memory various sources disagree over whether they spent the winter in lowland forests and summer in the mountains.. clarifying this point is something i can look into from the 24th- the 3rd Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In section "Ecology and behaviour", "This bird was diurnal, so that its nocturnal prey would be in its nest."--I could not understand this line. its nest --> their nests (prey is a collective noun. The prey referred to here is/are the nocturnal critters the bird ate, which would be in their lairs/burrows/whatever in the daytime. 'nest' is a bad word and I am trying to think of a better one.)
  • Pls work on this line, since the bird was diurnal, "nocturnal prey" seems odd, and also "Its diet consisted of insects and their larvae, including weta and huhu beetle, spiders, as well as small berries", so none of these preys can be in the nest. Pls work on this line., I feel that this line can be removed, since I dont see any much value addition (not sure let the editors decide.) Bluptr (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - added not much and made little sense. Kahuroa (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good move, didn't make much sense - pretty sure I didn't write that (!)Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In section "Feeding", the line "While sexual dimorphism in bill shape is found in other birds, it was most pronounced in the Huia. The woodhoopoes and certain birds of paradise[16] show a similar, but less extreme, dimorphism, and the bills of many hummingbirds show sexual difference in length which is not linked to variations in body size." seems out of place. (ok, moved to description section and incorporated there. Unreferenced bit removed)

• In section "Relationship with humans", can the phrases, "In some legends," and "In other traditions," mention the legends and traditions? Not strictly necessary, I am suggesting this because the above lines are consider Weasel words. (agree that phrasing is not optimal. My problem is I did not add this bit and do not have the book, so I do not know which legends mention what. The regular editors are less active for the time being and I can ask to see if this can be addressed) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten this section, using a source I have (Orbell) and removing references to a source used by another seemingly now inactive author. Orbell is probably the original source for the comment about the dreams anyway. Kahuroa (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could be more active!! i really do, haha. I will look into this if I can get the chance.Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The following para, "The bold and inquisitive nature of the Huia made it particularly easy to capture or kill.[8][9] Māori attracted the Huia by imitating its call and then captured it with a tari (a carved pole with a noose at the end) or snare or killed it with clubs or long spears. Often they exploited the strong pair bond by capturing one of a pair, which would then call out, attracting its mate which could then be easily captured.[9][10] Although not usually hunted for food, the Huia was considered excellent eating.[5]" seems out of place in the "In Culture" section, should this be in some section related to "Extinction"? (this is tricky; I see your point, but I note that numbers were reduced by maori but did not drop catastrophically until europeans came, so it is not strictly related to extinction either. I am in two minds about moving it. I need to sleep soon so will sleep on it) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about keeping it as it is and then mentioning that the hunting by maori did not threaten the existance of the bird in the "extinction" section?Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "shark teeth" should probably be "shark tooth" :) (hmm. my take on rereading it is that the feathers and teeth are in plural (talking about trade) and the greenstone is used in a collective rather than singular sense. Making it 'feather' and 'tooth' I feel makes it sound really odd) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The line, "New Zealand and the Cook Islands have produced several postage stamps portraying the Huia" , can we use, "released" instead of "produced several"? (done)

• The line, "Female Huia beaks have been known to be used in the creation of jewellery such as brooches" is out of place in "Extinction" and the better place for this is, "In culture" (?) (good spot, found a good place for it)

• "Further reading" comes before "External links" as per WP:MOS (done)

• After reading the entire article, I think the lead should be expanded. The lead is very small. (now expanded. Is this enough? I could probably increase a bit more)
  • For me, the lead looks good enough. Bluptr (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would request the editors to use Citation templates, (this is not strictly necessary to be implemented for a Good article). (working on it)

• The line, "Contrary to popular opinion, meals were not often shared by a pair (although such behaviour may have occasionally served to strengthen the pair bond). A pair did not cooperate in feeding, at least not in a strict sense. " seems to be Original research, can the editors please verify it? (agree it sounds odd. I will ask those who added the material. For the time being, I have commented out the first sentence while awaiting reference check, as it is the bit hwich sound interpretive)

• In the line, "following Māori settlement (see below)." , the link of below is broken, can the editors pls check this.

(unnecessary really, so removed, article not long enough to warrant internal links) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very well written, there is no point in delaying the GA status, there are few very minor issues above, which the editors can continue to work upon... Pls work on the article and make it a FA. Cheers --Bluptr (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. The two main content contributors (i.e. the ones with some of the obscure books) are having a bit of a break, and will hopefully return some time this year to be part of an FA push..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola all, I will have the oppurtunity to get back into this article quite soon, if everything goes according to plan. I feel that it is still rather "bottom heavy" - when I did my big push on it back in '07, I focussed on the place in maori culture and extinction sections but never got around to working on the biology. It will be fairly straightfoward for me to get all the old sources i used back together again and continue where I left off however. If I can find the time to rip into this later this month, i will consult with you (Casliber) and Kahuroa as to how to push for FA. Respect to you guys for all the hard work you have done on it so far! Kotare (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]